|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 08 July 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: Diary of Jack the Ripper:
Ten Year Reflection:
Archive through 08 July 2002
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 03:21 pm |        | Hi Dune
I am the pro diary camp! Brad was right!
But I like your posts and your thinking. Personally I think that if Maybrick wrote the diary then he must have been the ripper, it's nice though to see people considering other possibilities than "It's a modern forgery"! Doh!
I believe you will find Caz sitting in the no man's land that is called "old forgery". I don't believe she thinks the diary was written by Maybrick or that Maybrick was the ripper, but she isn't taken in by the moral majority who go around screaming "Modern Fake".
Just for the record Jeff, the evidence is so heavily stacked against the diary being a modern forgery that mine, yours and Caz's theories are the only ones worth bothering with.
Feldy's book is excellent, as is Shirley's. It helped to convince me that the diary is genuine.
Don't let the detractors get you down!
Peter.
P.S. I don't think it's relevant what Florie would or would not have said at her trial as, by that time, the diary was already written - so anything that happened after James' death could not affect it's content.
And as you'll find out - Feldy points out that slowly poisoning your husband to death does not qualify as "self defence" under the "I poisoned him because he said he was Jack the Ripper" law. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 12:40 pm | | Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the compliments - I think! 
I am always slightly wary of theories that people feel the need to 'go around screaming', as Peter puts it. If either the 'genuine' or 'modern hoax' theory could have been quietly supported, or hopefully even proved, by producing all the required evidence and presenting it publicly in a mature, modest and civil way, perhaps no one on either 'side' would have resorted to fits of the screaming abdabs against those with differing views, and the silence would have been deafening by now, and permanent.
Trouble is, the evidence for me is underwhelming at present. I don't believe James Maybrick wrote this diary - it's not in his own handwriting. But I have doubts about it being created in 1989 by someone who took the 'O costly intercourse of death' quote from Mike Barrett and his trusty Sphere Guide and gaily stuck it in his composition for good measure. While Mike might automatically associate those words with sex and murder, it stretches credulity to breaking point that the composer/penman would share his reasoning and pronounce the idea sound.
(I am going to post more on the modern hoax theory over on the re-evaluation board in a mo.)
As for Peter's belief that you will find me sitting in the no man's land called "old forgery", this land is no more than a mirage, there by default because everyone likes to pigeon-hole people somehow, even when all they have done is express doubts concerning the theories put forward so far. "Ah", they say. "Caz must believe the diary is an old forgery then, as she doesn't support the alternatives." Wrong! There is no old forgery theory for me to challenge or doubt, support or believe.
I've noticed that certain arguments against the diary being genuine - such as the one about Flo not keeping quiet if Jim had really confessed to her, as the diary author claims, to being the Ripper - to quote but one example - are trotted out and then left to gain general acceptance when they are in fact non-arguments.
The fact that Flo didn't mention anything at her trial about her husband telling her he was Jack the Ripper is a non-argument, either for or against the diary - it proves absolutely nothing about what he did or didn't tell her in the days before he died.
I don't really understand why people who, like me, don't believe the diary was written by Maybrick's own cold and clammy hand, can't come right out and admit when an argument put forward in favour of a fake doesn't actually work that way. Instead, they appear happy to ignore it, letting it stand unchallenged. And when muggins here does so, people take it as an indication that I am really 'pro-diary', or a closet Maybrickite.
Actually, it's an indication that I fail to see why any bad arguments have been shoved at us at all to show the thing is a fake, when the only argument needed in that regard is the one about the handwriting not being Maybrick's.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 03:22 pm | | Dear Robert Smith:
I'm replying to your message of the 30th May rather late because of our absence for some weeks in Chicago and Mexico.
You state quite rightly that I omitted the last part of the sentence which in full reads "Only when the Diary was published did anyone know that Sarah Robertson was his mistress, when she lived in Stepney some 25 years earlier." (presumably either Bancroft Road or Bromley Street.) So more properly I should say that it was by no means new information that Sarah Robertson had been JM's mistress but Keith Skinner's excellent research did manage to link her to an area close to Whitechapel.
It might help your case if you could show that JM was familiar with the area. Remember the so-called "Russell's Brief" refers only to him having visited a shipbrokers office in London and meeting the jeweller's assistant. There is no evidence that he lived at any time around the East End and the only addresses that we seem to have for him are in Virginia or Liverpool. It might be worth remarking that when he travelled to New York on the SS City of Chester arriving September 28th 1874, Sarah did not accompany him although listed next to him on the Passenger Manifest is Miss Susan Brewer a US Citizen aged 18.
You further say that in connection with the "brief" concerning the ending of the Robertson relationship about 1878: "Russell would have been keen to avoid any suggestion of overlap in James' relationships with Sarah Robertson and Florence as the jury might have been persuaded that sexual jealosy was a strong motive for Florence to murder James." Not so. The "brief" whatever form it took would have been a private note to Sir Charles by a researcher/clerk/solicitor to help him formulate his case. It would not have been made evidence nor read in open court.I should perhaps mention that you use the "brief" to confirm the year the relationship started, Sarah's then profession and the five children of the couple. Is it proper to accept those points and query the suggestion in the same piece, that the relationship lasted "of and on" for only 20 years?
Your quote from the Ryan book is of course interesting but I would like to see further evidence showing a correspondence between this woman and Sarah. There is something a little wrong in the words: "...that she had given jewels to "Jim" as security for a loan to him..." Should that be "from?"
"Selective quoting?" No. Arsenic and Strychnine do not have that sort of effect even if you call it "sexually motivated rage." Arsenic-eating as practised by those irritating Styrian peasantshelps the stamina as does coca-leaf chewing. In larger quantities it is usually fatal. You say: "The arsenic was said to encourage the libido..." but who was it has "said" this?
Going back to your original 15th May message I have deliberately chosen not to comment on the forensic evidence but I certainly applaud your positive responces to new proposals for tests and look forward to those tests being carried out.
As you have not commented on my points concerning JM's financial position I presume that you agree with me that in fact he was not in any desparate situation.
Considering the many elementary mistakes made in Bill Rubinstein's magazine article on the Whitechapel murders, it might be wise not to use him as an authority on the diary. |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 06:27 pm | | Hi Caz
The argument has been off the boil for a while, but I can feel it picking up again.
Thus I have problems with this:
"Actually, it's an indication that I fail to see why any bad arguments have been shoved at us at all to show the thing is a fake, when the only argument needed in that regard is the one about the handwriting not being Maybrick's".
The reason I have a problem with what you wrote Caz, is that the handwriting argument has always been the one that bothered me the least about the diary.
I simply don't believe that any of us have enough samples of Maybrick's handwriting to say that the diary does or does not match with it.
From the few samples of Maybrick's handwriting that we have, there would appear to be a problem, on the face of it.
But as Paul Feldman has rightly pointed out, it is not uncommon to have different styles for different purposes.
Also, Hannah Koren's reading of the handwriting in the diary is that it displays characteristics consistent with those of a serial killer.
Quite remarkable then, that a 'forger' should share those characteristics.
And we have indisputable evidence courtesy of Bill Waddell that does show a positive match between undoubted handwriting of Maybrick's and a letter purported to have been sent by 'The Ripper' at the time of the murders.
Again, quite a remarkable coincidence.
Mike Barrett is not the forger, I would stake my house on that. For all the lies that Mike has told, I still believe we have enough evidence - if not to prove, but to maybe suggest beyond reasonable doubt, that Mike could not have forged the diary.
Witness his confusion with revealing his "ownership" of the Sphere guides.
I'm staying firmly on the side of 'genuine diary', but I respect other views providing that they are backed up with reasoned thought and not the kind of abuse that was prevalent on here not too long ago when certain posters would take to using phrases such as "This obvious fake" or "We have proven beyond doubt that the diary is a forgery, it only remains to prove who forged it".
The diary is not an obvious fake, and no one has proven it to be a forgery.
I wouldn't be so insulting to other people's opinions as to state "This obviously genuine diary", so long may the new regime continue.
The diary is genuine, I am convinced of that.
Regards
Peter.
P.S. Did you see Tom Cruise at the premiere of Minority Report in London tonight? There is a man truly deserving of the label "Star", having spent some two hours signing autographs, having pictures taken and speaking on mobile phones. And the smile didn't slip once. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 06:50 pm | | Respectfully, Peter, my friend--sometimes I have sloppy handwriting, sometimes it's neat. But it's always going to be identifiable as my handwriting and not likely to be mistaken for yours or anyone else's. Unless you're a master forger, your handwriting doesn't resemble anyone else's, not to the point of being mistaken for it. I still say, try copying someone else's style and you'll see how unique your own is.
Take care,
Dave
PS--Tom Cruise's smile is permanently grafted onto his face, courtesy of Hollywood plastic surgeons. It's good for his public image! (So's Penelope Cruz, but then, she's good for anyone's image)
PPS I'm one of many who was sad to witness your falling out with John Omlar, whose posting here I greatly respect. Anybody know what happened to John, anyway? Last I heard he was inquiring into the possibility of new tests being conducted. Then he went to play golf. Hmmm. . .golf, the killer sport. Hope John is well. Maybe he found his own Penelope Cruz! |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 01:42 pm | | Hi, Peter, Caz, and David O:
Yes!!! I hear Tom Cruise with his glued-on smile is set to star in a new movie entitled, "Golf the Killer Sport" with cameo appearances by Tiger Woods, Andrei Aggasi, and David Beckham. . . Watch those legs, Caz!!!  |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 04:53 pm | | David
I could mail you ten different pages of A4, five of which had been written on by myself, five of which had been written on by other people.
You wouldn't be able to tell which five were all written by the same person, me.
That much is a fact
I know that we are all supposed to have certain characteristics in our handwriting that we just can't get rid of even if we try, and that handwriting analysis is supposed to be more of an art than a science.
The handwriting debate will rage, but it has definitely not been the final nail in the diary's coffin.
Not even the first one.
James Maybrick wrote the diary, I firmly believe that.
And as I stated previously, you simply do not have enough samples of his handwriting to prove otherwise.
But we do have enough samples of Mike Barrett's handwriting to confidently say that he didn't write it. Likewise with Anne, Caroline, St Gerard, Tony Devereux etc.
Get back to me on this one, it's good fun.
Chris, how do you do that?
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 05:26 pm | | Hello, Peter!
Since I'm not a handwriting expert, I might not be able to tell the difference. Then again I might. But it's not a fact until proven Feel free to mail me your samples, though--I'd very much like to see your wildly different styles Email me for my address if you like. Or scan them and email them, if it's easier.
How many handwriting samples of Mr. Maybrick's would be sufficent to draw a conclusion regarding his authorship of the diary, in your opinion?
I agree with you about Mike Barrett's handwriting. I don't think he forged the diary, but I think he knows who did. Just my opinion.
You saw my post about not hearing from Alan Small, didn't you? I never did hear from him (perhaps he's very busy). I don't want you to think I'd forgotten about our experiment, however. It would have been much more interesting to have an expert in on this, amateur or professional.
Take care, Peter |
Author: Graham Jay
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 06:26 pm | | Hi,
I don't pretend to be an expert on any of this, but I do remember hearing somewhere that there was some serious doubt as to whether Maybrick actually wrote his will, or whether it was written out for him. Didn't it vary somewhat from a contemporary account of it? And didn't it have spelling errors in the name of a female relative? |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 10:21 am | | Hi David,
I don't think Mike forged the diary, and I don't think he has a clue who did - just my opinion.
Hi Graham,
Welcome to the dizzy world of out-on-a-limb diary theorists and sportsmen's lower limbs.
The spelling error was in the middle name of Maybrick's daughter, Gladys. I'm not sure that proves anything, especially if the poor old thing was poorly when the will was written. Men are terrible when it comes to remembering birthdays and anniversaries of even the closest relatives, so perhaps some are also bad at remembering how to spell their middles names too.
Love,
Caz
PS I have been thinking again about that little red 1891 diary, that in my opinion is a little red herring.
The argument has often been repeated that Mike ordered this item in March 1992 in an attempt to obtain a more suitable book for the diary text, before taking it to Doreen Montgomery in the April. At any rate, the order is viewed by some as highly suspicious.
Yet Maurice Chittenden's claim, that Mike spent months taking the diary round London publishing houses before finally getting a result with Doreen's literary agency, has also been repeated by those who think Mike was involved somehow.
There's a clear contradiction here that I hadn't noticed before. How could Mike have hoped to transfer the text from the scrapbook into a more suitable book once he had already shown it to potential publishers?
So which do we ditch? One's got to go. Is it Chittenden's account, or the idea that Mike ordered the red diary as a possible alternative to the scrapbook? Personally, I've seen no evidence for either, but they can't both be true. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 12:05 pm | | Caz-- Hi. Refresh my memory, if you will. Barrett had phoned Crew before showing up with the diary, hadn't he? We know he contacted Pan Books previously, and according to Chittenden, there were others. What we don't know is whether Barrett had physically shown the goods to anyone else. It seems doubtful because Mike's reason for contacting a literary agent in the first place was the fact that he was being snubbed by those aloof London publishers. Either way, Mike's actions [ie., if he really was thinking of transferring the diary into something fresh] wouldn't really show contradiction, only incaution. What I think you might want to concede is that we don't really know whether Mike had necessarily thought things through enough to realize that the diary itself would have gone on public display. He was, after all, only trying to sell the publishing rights of the document...not the document itself. Perhaps a meaningful distinction?
I don't follow this thread much anymore, but it seems to me that one of the insanities has always been that we are stuck trying to find rational motives for people who are acting in an entirely strange and irrational manner. Circumstantial evidence is in itself is a real bugger, and when one throws irrationality into the mix, then it becomes rather a hopeless case of trying to make sense where there is no sense to be had. So, to me, in the end, I'm left with just the general perception that when it came to the Maybrick diary, Mike was never up to any good, and almost certainly knows its true origins. Cheers, RP |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 07:18 am | | | I may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge the source for Maurice Chittenden's claim that Mike touted the 'diary' around several London publishers is not established and the story itself has not be substantiated. Certainly the story I received from Mike is that he rang a publisher who quite typically advised him to find an agent, which he did. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 08:35 am | | Paul - what you say has a ring of truth to it - publishers are always telling me to find an agent. Would Mike have known that little gem without experiencing it?
David - I would still like to do the handwriting experiment, but as we have seen the experts opinions vary so widely that I believe we are all entitled to call ourselves experts on this one.
Graham, Caz - contemporary reports suggest that Maybrick loved his children dearly. No father worth his salt is going to forget how to spell his daughters name.
Graham - I believe it was Feldy who threw the possibility of a forged will into the mix. I'm not sold on it, but regard it as an interesting possibility. Even the handwriting "experts" who have studied it have said that there are far more similarities between Michael Maybrick's and James Maybrick's handwriting than one would ordinarily expect to find between brothers.
Sometimes the will is used to 'prove' that James wrote a particular ripper letter (i.e. it shows similarities with handwriting), then Feldy claims it is forged. Feldy goes further, he claims to have proven that it is forged. But good old Melvyn does an equally good job of suggesting that the will is not a forgery.
Still to make my mind up on the will, but the diary is genuine ...
Peter. |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 08:53 am | | ALL DIARY POSTERS!!!
I have a favor to ask: Mrs Anne Morgan has accused me of deleting a post she made earlier this week for reasons of apparent bias towards something or other. I have checked all my back posts for the last two weeks and cannot find such a post. Since I know that I haven't deleted Jack Squat in the last couple of weeks ( and I wait til the last minute to touch the dreaded Diary boards)and yet I know that someone like Mrs. Morgan would never stoop to lying, could you please check through your back posts and see if there has been anything? Something must have gone wrong and I need to figure out what. I know that some of you archive or get emails of the posts.
I'll give you a big ole' public thank you and a  .
Thank you, |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 09:14 am | | Nothing to report Ally, I come on here everyday and don't remember seeing anything by Anne/TrueBrits.
Caz tends to be the collector of diary posts, if it exists then she'll have it.
Peter. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 11:06 am | | Hi, Peter
"David - I would still like to do the handwriting experiment, but as we have seen the experts opinions vary so widely that I believe we are all entitled to call ourselves experts on this one."
Not me, but I think it would be fun to give it a shot. Send along your examples if you're still amenable. Along with samples from other people, I trust you on your honor to provide several samples of your own If you decide to go with the snail mail route and your package gets too bulky, I'm happy to split postage costs with you. Just let me know, my friend.
Dave |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 05:17 pm | | Miss Morris,
Thanks for sharing your opinion with me
Love,
Dave |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 06:04 am | | By R.J. Palmer on Friday, 24 May 2002 - 01:13 am:
In regards to the recent death of Mr. Dangar, I'm wondering
if any attempt has been made to retrieve his tapes of Mike
Barrett before they are lost to oblivion? They might be
nothing but rambling nonsense, but, on the other hand, they
might offer a solution. Now that luggage is safe, why
doesn't someone try and snatch these up?
I'm informed that the Dangar files are now in safe hands!
There's no trace of any Diary posts by Anne Morgan or True Brits whether or not they refer to Shirley.
And can we have an update on the new diary tests? As Robert Smith has stated on these boards that he has no objections providing he doesn't have to pay for them, surely we can look forward to them being carried out soon. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 09:34 am | | Hi Peter,
How soon can we know if 'the Dangar files' can confirm when Mike first reported that he knew Crashaw was the source of the 'O costly...' quote?
And has it been established yet that there are new tests available which will be able to date the diary?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz
PS I have seen no trace of any recent posts by Anne Morgan or True Brits on the diary boards either. I don't know Mrs. Morgan so I can't be as confident as Alegria is about the truthfulness (or otherwise) of someone 'like' her. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 01 July 2002 - 09:02 am | | Hi RJ,
Thanks for your thoughts on how Chittenden's claim, that the diary had been rejected by several publishers, could be reconciled with Mike later trying to obtain a substitute for it.
When that claim was originally cited on the boards, if I remember correctly, Mike was alleged to have spent 'months' trying to get a publisher to bite. It was this time-frame that puzzled me, and still does, if it was merely a case of Mike phoning round potential publishers, all rejecting the diary unseen, until Pan helpfully advised him to contact a literary agent which, as we know, he did. Do you not ask yourself why that process would have taken months? Especially if, as Mike later claimed, he forged the diary because he was behind with the mortgage payments?
But I appreciate that in the end we can put every puzzling detail down to Mike being Mike - from spending months making a few phone calls (all as Mr. Williams, perhaps?) that would have taken most of us a morning or two, to not thinking things through properly, or acting incautiously, regarding the actual book he needed for presenting the diary text to a potential publisher.
You wrote:
'I'm left with just the general perception that when it came to the Maybrick diary, Mike was never up to any good, and almost certainly knows its true origins.'
And that's fine, but it is only your perception. My own perception is that Mike is almost certainly as ignorant as the rest of us about the diary's true origins.
Maybe time will tell, maybe it won't.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Robert Smith
Wednesday, 03 July 2002 - 10:46 am | | Dear Peter Birchwood,
In answer to your post of 26th June.
1 Sarah Robertson
You ask whether I could show that JM was familiar with the area of Whitechapel/Stepney. I can only repeat my post of 12th April 2002, quoting Sarah Robertson’s aunt’s second husband, Thomas Conconi. Sarah was a witness to their marriage in 1863, signing her name “Sarah Ann Maybrick”. In a codicil to his will in 1868, he bequeathed all his “household goods” to “Sarah Ann Maybrick, wife of James Maybrick” and gives her address as “55 Bromley Street, Commercial Road, London” (Stepney). In 1863, Maybrick was 25, and we can reasonably assume he would indeed have been familiar with the area where his “wife” lived at that time, and for many years to come.
You also query whether there is any evidence that Sarah Robertson continued to be James’s mistress after his marriage to Florence. Ryan, when writing about the year 1887 in The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick says: “She [Florence] learned that he [James] was the father of three children born out of wedlock before his marriage, and that he had sired two more children by the same woman since he and Florence had been married.”
And, as I reported in my post of 30th May, again quoting from Ryan, in 1889 Thomas and Michael Maybrick met in Liverpool a woman, who “readily admitted”, “that her five children were in fact the Maybrick brothers’ nephews and nieces”. The brothers had been led to Sarah by the dressmaker, who had come to Battlecrease House after James had died, looking for payment for the dresses he had made for her.
I don’t see why it is not “proper” for me to accept some of Sir Charles Russell’s information as correct, but query the suggestion that their relationship lasted for only 20 years. It is clear from the above details, that it extended over at least 26 years (1863-1889).
There is further evidence of the estrangement between Florence and James from the young American visitor to Battlecrease House in Summer 1888, Florence Aunspaugh. She reported, that the couple slept in separate bedrooms.
If the estrangement between the couple did start in 1887, it is understandable why Florence turned to Edwin Maybrick and Alfred Brierley for comfort, which in turn gave rise to James’s jealous rages. The diarist refers many times to his wife’s sexual relationship with her “whoremaster” as his motivation for murder. He also refers to his own mistress (“I will visit mine, but I will not be gentle. I will show the whore what I am capable of”).
Whether or not the diarist is a forger, he is apparently correct that Sarah continued to be James’s close female companion right up to the period of his death in 1889. Here is another interesting example, where the diarist’s version of events turns out to be right, in the face of what had previously been generally accepted, including by you.
2 Arsenic
You also query my comment that: “The arsenic was said to encourage the libido.” You ask: “Who was it who has said this?”
Very relevantly, James Maybrick for one. In Florence’s trial, the Liverpool apothecary, Edwin Heaton, who supplied Maybrick with arsenic, quotes Maybrick as saying that, “he was taking the arsenic for its aphrodisiacal qualities.” In the trial, Sir Charles Russell, asks Heaton about the effect of arsenic: “Did it excite passion?” Heaton replies simply: “Yes, it had that effect.”
I also quote from the very popular and authoritative book, published in 1856, “The Chemistry of Common Life” by James Johnston. He refers, as you do, to the practice of arsenic eating by the Styrians in lower Austria, and, tellingly, describes arsenic “as a love-awakener”.
We know that arsenic was regularly used by many gentleman of the Cotton Exchange as a “pick-me-up”. But the diarist goes much further, and makes a direct reference to arsenic as an erotic stimulant to Maybrick’s murderous impulses against whores in general and his wife in particular: “My medicine will give me strength and the thought of the whore and her whoring master will spur me one no end”.
Again, Peter, the diarist displays obscure and specialised knowledge, of which you, for one, are unaware.
3 Maybrick’s financial position
I think we agree, that by late 1887, Maybrick’s finances were getting very rocky. In a letter to her mother at that time, Florence writes that James has disclosed that his assets were reduced to £1,500 and that the business was making almost no profit. She continues: “For one must keep up appearances until he has more capital to fall back on to meet his liabilities since the least suspicion aroused, all claims would pour in at once, and how could Jim settle with what he has now”.
However, you suggest, that James’s finances recovered after 1887 and that, in his will, he left a substantial estate. But the only sum mentioned in the purported will was £2,500 worth of life insurance. All that shows is that James kept up his premiums. Against the wishes expressed in the will, his brothers sold off the furniture, and raised £300 in hard cash.
Maybrick’s business had been successful up to 1886, but it seems to me that during the last two years of his life, his financial situation had indeed become “desperate”. In such circumstances, people can commit desperate acts, and certainly, there is plenty of evidence of the historic Maybrick’s rapid behavioural and physical decline in the last year or so of his life.
4 Diary tests
You refer to “new tests”. As you know, I explained my position on 15th May 2002, when I wrote:
“If anyone knows of a highly regarded organisation, which can come up with a test, not previously conducted, and which conclusively proves when the ink was put on the paper, then let’s hear about it. I believe I have been consistent in responding positively to proposals for such tests, as long as the diary is physically protected and I am not expected to pay for them or disrupt my business to achieve them.”
That was also my position last year, when the request for new tests was raised by Ivor Edwards. The availability of such a test or tests is currently being investigated. If that investigation demonstrates, that new tests will fulfil my criteria, the fundraising can commence and testing of the ink can be instigated. I hope that there are new forensic tests capable of establishing definitively when the diary was written. On the other hand, more inconclusive tests will be a waste of time and money.
RJ Palmer in his post of 30th June, expressed some impatience on the subject, and I refer him to the above. When there is something to say on further tests, it will be said on these boards, and no amount of hassling will speed up the process. Until then, I can add no more.
Robert Smith |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 03 July 2002 - 04:37 pm | | Please quote this properly. (The details are in a book published under your imprint.) The bequest was in a codicil which took effect if his wife predeceased. We can't "...reasonably assume he would indeed have been
familiar with the area where his "wife" lived at that time,
and for many years to come." as he also gives JM's address as "Old Hall Street Liverpool." The wording of this codicil is uncertain as it's not clear whether Sarah ever lived with James at a London address. On the face of it it seems a more reasonable reading would be that James lived in Liverpool and Sarah at Bromley Street. And of course Bromley Street is at the East end of the Commercial Road near Stepney Station, not at the West (Whitechapel) end. Also, although Sarah (sans James) lived there at the time of the 1871 census, we know that by 1876 she lived at Sydenham, South London. So she left Bromley Street between 1871 and 1876. So she moved between three and eight years after the codicil was written. Hardly "...many years to come."
Concerning the Robertson-Maybrick children we still have to explain who they were and what happened to them. Feldman never managed to find them or any trace that they existed.Unless we can find births for these children there very existence rests on secondary evidence. Certainly the story of the Maybrick brothers and the dressmaker is interesting and Russells brief must rest on some evidence. And it does seem to me that in the one para quoted of the Brief, you are still picking up on what suits your theory and discarding what doesn't. The fact also is that the only occasion when Sarah is not provably living with her own family in the London area is during the 1861 census. It would be interesting to see where she lived at that time and whether she was with Maybrick. Word is that the 1861 census is scheduled to be surname indexed fairly shortly although given the dogs-breakfast that was made over the 1901 census we may still have some time to wait to find out this crucial information which should also sort out the matter of the children. By the way, if we accept that James and Sarah started their relationship in 1858, then by 1871 their oldest child would be about 13. Why are they not listed on the 1871 census with their mother? Of course they could all be dead by then or perhaps the three born before the marriage to Florrie died pre 1871, there were no more during the next ten years (because she had the last two after the marriage to Florrie) and there was a reawakening of passion between 1881 and 1889. And of course Sarah would be in her 40's in 1881.
Talking about Sarah Ann Robertson, let us examine the Bible which was apparently given by James Maybrick to Sarah Ann Robertson and which in turn was given by her to Alice Bills.
The inscription inside reads according to Shirley and to Feldman: "To my darling Piggy from her effectionate husband JM. On the occsion of her birthday August 2nd 1865."
Keith Skinner was kind enough to send me several photographs of this inscription. The name is not "Piggy" (an unlikely pet name for a beloved) but "Peggy." In his letter to me Keith says: "I'm more convinced than ever now it is Peggy." And I agree with him.
Sow does this correspond with a lady named Sarah Ann? Hardly. Peggy is more commonly a diminutive of Margaret.
I have suggested that a search be done in Sunderland, Co. Durham in the church records to see whether a baptism or birth exists on or near that date for Sarah Ann Robertson. That should clear thing up a little.
Surely you must realise that the class of person to which the Maybricks belonged would as a matter of course have separate bedrooms, typically adjoining or perhaps with a dressing-room between. They could afford the space. This is no evidence of estrangement but of a lifestyle.
You cannot of course prove an estrangement and/or relationships with other men by quoting from the diary. I'm sure that this was just a slip on your part. And please correct me if I'm wrong but I do not remember the diarist ever referring to "Sarah" or "Miss Robertson." You therefore can't say that she "...continued to be James's close female
companion right up to the period of his death in 1889." The evidence is just not there.
Regarding arsenic, please distinguish between what James Maybrick said and what someone else reports him as having said. The difference is important. Thank you however for giving these quotesDoes Arsenci improve the libido? Well one short comment about usage in the 1800's is that:
"Weak compounds of arsenic were often used to increase strength and endurance, remedy anemia and improve the skin and fur of animals". Arsenicum album Author/s: Jennifer Wurges
Although those irritating Styrians could take several grains daily with no ill-effects, it is a cumulative poison which was widely taken both then and now as a homeopathic formulation. If Maybrick took more than the infinitesimal dosage common in homeopathic rmedies (some of which indeed made claims of restoring the "vigour" to jaded gentlemen,) then why was so little found in him at the autopsy? Just to save me looking for it, can you quote the lines in the diary which refer to Maybrick specifically taking arsenic?
I think that we will have to disagree on Maybrick's financial position.
I look forward to hearing that you have agreed (as indeed you have in the past) to further tests, which will conclusively prove whether or not the diary is a forgery. I take your points that:
"as long as as the diary is physically protected and I am not expected
to pay for them or disrupt my business to achieve them." I am sure that all these criteria can be met but perhaps you would be more exact about "physically protected?" One would not want to see your refusal to allow a test just because, for example, a minute portion of ink or paper was destroyed. It has also been mentioned that there might be stiffening material in the cover or binding that could be dated and this should be looked at. Therefore it would be appropriate to look at additional items other than ink. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 03 July 2002 - 06:32 pm | | Robert--Hi. Thanks for the post. I'd like to add to the comments above that the quote you mention in Ryan's book does not identify Sarah Robertson by name [nor is she identified anywhere in Ryan's book]. So one must really wonder how much information Ryan had about Maybrick's mistress. But more to the point, the quote goes on to say: "So somewhere in Liverpool, she[ie., Florie] now knew, there was a woman who loved her pompous husband as much as she did, a woman who depended on him and had been willing to continue to bear his children after he had married another." (pg. 28) So obviously Ryan has Maybrick's mistress in Liverpool, not London nor the East End at the relevant time. The information about Maybrick's mistress is so cloudy and unconfirmed that I don't think it should be considered as evidence that Maybrick knew his way around Whitechapel, nor would likely have visited there in 1888.
As for Maybrick's money, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that his finances were on the skids after 1886. If, as you say, in late 1887 Maybrick's business was "making almost no money", how exactly do you explain the line in the diary {page two] where "Maybrick" states quite clearly:
"Business is flourishing so I have no inclination as regards the matter he describes as most urgent"?
If the diary were genuine, this line would have been penned sometime in early 1888. So is this an example of the diary not being in touch with obscure historical facts? [Personally, I think this is pinched from the passage in Ryan's book: "Maybrick's cotton brokerage flourished." (pg 26)] It might be considered as good evidence that the diarist didn't have a very intimate knowledge of Maybrick's finances, nor the historical record.
Cheers, RJ Palmer
PS. Caz--thanks for the comments, but my thinking is that no one has ever offered proof that the diary existed before Mike turned up with it in his living room. There is no record that mentions its existance. It came from nowhere. So until someone proves otherwise, I'm sticking with the theory that it came from Mike. We don't know otherwise. |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 03 July 2002 - 07:24 pm | | Hello
I'm enjoying the triangular debate between Robert, Peter and RJ. I don't have much to add to it per se, but you all know my views.
I do think it is a tad rich to still take issue with Robert's assertion that Maybrick would have been familiar with Whitechapel. He rests that assertion not just on the fact that Sarah came from there, but also on the undisputed fact that Maybrick conducted business from an office in the minories right up until his death.
R.J. I hope you don't mind me jumping in and answering one of your questions to Robert - about the line in the diary that says "business is flourishing".
What exactly do you think your interpretation of that line proves?
The diarist may as well have written "Hey, I've had a bad couple of years, but I'm on the up now - business is flourishing and it won't be long before I've got some money in the bank again".
Nowhere does that line give you information which alludes to Maybrick's financial state.
And this: " ...my thinking is that no one has ever offered proof that the diary existed before Mike turned up with it in his living room. There is no record that mentions its existance".
How many more times? If you are going to repeat claims like that then you simply have to break Anne's story and, incidentally, that of her father.
Anne and her father give the diary a provenance going back to the 1940's - I won't bother repeating the evidence here, it has been aired a hundred times.
And no one has ever broken Anne's story. Not even come close.
So, for now, the diary is genuine and James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
For now
Peter. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 03 July 2002 - 08:33 pm | | Peter--You should have said "Maybrick conducted business through an office in the Minories", not from an office in the Minories. It is of course possible that Maybrick might have visited the office, but, on the otherhand, he may have never been near it in his life. I think it's not unreasonable for me to say that if you're ever going to graduate beyond your own personal convictions and convince someone else, then you're going to have to actually place Maybrick in the East End in the Autumn of 1888. You're dealing with a savage crowd, and you must realize by now that you aren't silencing the critics.
But it hardly matters. The handwriting in the diary doesn't match Maybrick's, nor the 'Dear Boss' letter. And there weren't any breasts on Mary Kelly's table.
And this goes directly to a comment made earlier by Caroline Morris. She asked --a wee bit slyly, I thought-- why the critics of the diary 'bother' to harangue over the small details, when the diary's handwriting doesn't even match Maybrick's. I think the implication being that the critics 'protest too much', betraying a sort of dread of Maybrick-as-Ripper. I hardly think this is the case. Partly it's the 'fascination with what is difficult'; people attracted to this sort of research like to brood and bother over tricky historical details. Also (and I don't think I'm being unfair here) it's the chosen field of battle because those that are plumping for the diary tend to wage their fight over minutia and obscure historical ambiguities because it's a lot more appealing than facing the glaring problems of the ink, the handwriting, and the provenance. 'In My Humble Opinion', of course.
The only reason I think the 'minutia' is important is this: there seems to be an ever growing tendency among some to consider Maybrick a legitimate suspect even while acknowledging the diary is a forgery. The reasoning seems to be that it could be an 'old hoax' based on an 'oral tradition'...which, naturally, opens the door to 'inside information' that Maybrick really was the Ripper. This sounds like an end run to me, and I don't buy it. If the diary is a forgery (it is) then Maybrick should be out of the picture.
But back to the argument at hand. Robert Smith has posted that Maybrick's finances in 1887 up until his death in 1889 were "desperate" and "very rocky". The Maybrick diary's passage---allegedly written in 1888---says without any ambiguity: "businesss is flourishing". It's now your responsibility, Peter, as a diary believer, to prove that business really was flourishing for Maybrick in the late winter/early Spring of 1888. Otherwise, you have a problem. Cheers, RP |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 04 July 2002 - 04:25 am | | Hi RP,
Aren't you being a little unfair when you say that argument revolves around the minutia because that enables pro-diarist people not to face the questions of ink, handwriting, and provenance? All three were the focus of considerable attention from the start and have remained so ever since, but they remain to be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. No resolution is probably why the discussion as degenerated to largely meaningless points of minutia arising from the content of the document. As for provenance, many questions have been raised, few have been answered, and I wonder if Peter is in a position to answer Caz’s question regarding the Dangar material..
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 04 July 2002 - 07:52 am | | Hi Peter B,
You wrote:
‘If Maybrick took more than the infinitesimal dosage common in homeopathic rmedies…then why was so little found in him at the autopsy?’
You also asked Robert about references in the diary to Maybrick ‘specifically taking arsenic’.
Well, according to Ryan, Mr Addison, Florie’s prosecutor, explained at her trial that arsenic “is not a cumulative poison. It does not collect in the system in the same way, for instance, that lead does; on the contrary, it rapidly passes away, and it is the arsenic which passes away which kills, and not that which remains…” Jim’s doctor, Dr Humphreys, testified that tests for arsenic on his faeces, two days before he died, had turned out negative. In other words, as Ryan wrote, ‘no arsenic had been passed by his system two or three days before death’.
Sir Charles Russell, on cross-examining Dr Fuller, brought out the admission that the effect of doses of arsenic ‘varies according to the individual and that much depression occurs on the withdrawal of the drug from those who take it in very large doses’.
Now, if you are of the opinion that Ryan was a source – or the source - for the Maybrick material in the diary, there is surely more than enough about Jim being a regular arsenic head for your modern forger to get his teeth into. And from the lines in the diary, ‘May God help me. I pray each night he will take me, the disappointment when I awake is difficult to describe I no longer take the dreaded stuff for fear I will harm my dear Bunny, worse still the children’, I get the distinct impression that our forger is milking for all its worth the suggestion that Jim may have taken ‘very large doses’ of arsenic; that this gave Jim his violent urges and the physical strength to indulge them; and that he finally forced himself to stop, which left him suicidally depressed.
How would you read it, Peter, if Ryan was the forger’s source, but the diarist had something other than arsenic in mind?
And what, if any, are the alternatives to Ryan being a source?
Hi RJ,
Could you just clarify for me what you mean by ‘facing the glaring problems’ of the ink? There is an ongoing problem over proving it was put on the paper as recently as 1989, isn’t there? Eastaugh concluded there was no inconsistency with the date of 1889. And assuming the ink’s established ingredients, together with Voller’s visual examination, tend to rule out Diamine, no one has yet come up with the name of a viable modern alternative that wouldn’t have been exposed by previous testing. So who exactly is not facing the problem here?
As for facing the glaring problems with the handwriting and the provenance, no one appears to know whose handwriting is in the diary, or how it came to be in Mike’s hands in 1992, despite the best efforts of all concerned, pro and anti-diary alike. So either we are all guilty of arguing over minutiae (plural I think, gents, in this case? We’re not discussing a minutia like the graffito here ), because none of us like facing up to the awkward and unresolved questions, or we are all trying to boldly go forward together (please excuse the split infinitive) in our quest for the truth.
Finally, I assume you already believe 99.9 recurring % that the science will reveal that the diary is of modern origin, if only it can get its dating act together. But what, if by some faint chance, the diary turned out to be, say, several decades old? Would you then start wondering why Maybrick was chosen and where the little faker found his material?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 04 July 2002 - 08:57 am | | Hi, R.J., Caz, Peter B., Peter W., Paul, etc.:
I think it is true that the Diarist never mentions that he takes arsenic, isn't that so? Thus, the reason (I think) for Peter Birchwood's question to Robert. Instead, rather the Diarist talks about his "medicine," his "pills," etc., without actually mentioning the name of the infernal substance.
Caz makes a good point in citing the statement of Mr. Addison, the prosecutor at Florie's trial, who stated that arsenic does not build up in the body like lead, which would explain why Maybrick had so little of the chemical in his body at his death. I might note that he had been suffering from diarrhea for some days before his death, so that any arsenic in his system from his last self-dosing with the substance, could have been transported out of his body well before his demise.
In terms of Maybrick's candidacy as a Ripper suspect, I agree that if there is nothing to make him a suspect beyond the very questionable Diary, he should not be in the frame. Although, on the other hand, I can understand that he makes for a convenient Victorian monster who could fit the stereotype of the gentleman murderer that the motion pictures particularly have popularized.
I think it is unfortunate that the Diarists are intent on making much of Maybrick's tenuous East End connections and to contend, against the evidence, as R.J. validly points out, that he actually worked out of the office in the Minories. Rather he had business with that office from the distance of his place of business in Liverpool. Certainly the trial testimony at Florie's trial does not bear out the notion that Maybrick worked in London. Instead, we know he worked in Liverpool... and there is intriguing testimony about the work he did for several months in every year in the United States. It will be interesting indeed to see if any evidence surfaces that James may have been in America during 1888 and perhaps at the relevant times in August to November 1888 when he was supposedly in London carving up prostitutes.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 04 July 2002 - 12:10 pm | | Caz,Paul--I might have been a little over-zealous in my post yesterday, for which I apologize. It is true that both critics & supporters of the diary have been guilty of playing the minutiae game. It just seems a little absurd that we agonize over Grand National times and other such items, when it's been clearly shown that the diary's handwriting doesn't match Maybrick's will, nor the 'Dear Boss' letter, and the diary makes obvious flubs [such as the breasts on the table]. I think it is only reasonable to concede that the diary is a forgery, and I do think it somewhat strange that a battle is still being waged over technicalities in the historical record. I'm not sure I undestand the statement that the handwriting has not been resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
Caz--We disagree about the ink. I don't believe that Eastaugh & Voller's statements 'tend to rule out Diamine'. The AFI test tends to 'rule in' Diamine. But I will concede that the forgers had better luck with the ink than they did with the handwriting or the provenance. Still, the existance of chloroacetamide seems conclusive. Voller's visual examination might have been influenced by the absorbant nature of the paper, by the possibility that the ink was diluted, or even the possibility that Barrett [as he claimed] cooked the book in the oven for a spell.
But this is old ground, that we have already discussed many times. Let's agree to skip it, shall we?
Chris--Hi. At the trial, Edwin Maybrick stated that his brother hadn't been back to Norfolk since 1884. [Irving, p. 229] I have always assumed that this meant that Maybrick didn't return to America after moving to Liverpool. I could be wrong, but I'm being cautious about Maybrick travelling yearly to the States.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 04 July 2002 - 12:46 pm | | Hi RP,
I couldn’t agree more with the general sentiments you express in the first paragraph of your post. As far as the last sentence about the handwriting is concerned, I would say that there may be some concern about the reliability of handwriting analysis per se but the more so when it comes to assessing handwriting when it depends on comparing a questioned long document against a far shorter genuine one, especially when they are not produced at the same time, for the same purpose and under completely different conditions. Personally, of course, I have always found the handwriting the biggest objection to the ‘diary’ being genuine, but I do understand and appreciate the concerns of others. And equally, of course, the ‘diary’ handwriting has not been shown to be Mike Barrett’s or Anne Graham’s, or, I think, Gerrad Kane’s, and memory dims, but I don’t think any direct link has been shown between Mike and Anne and Mr. Kane except that Devereux knew them all, and it hasn’t been established that the ‘diary’ existed prior to Tony Devereux’s death, and we therefore have no idea who penned the thing or when or whether Mike and Anne knew it was forged or not. But we’ve been down this path before and the ball currently seems to be in another’s court. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 04 July 2002 - 12:56 pm | | Hi RJ,
But unless the chloroacetamide plus all the other ingredients of Diamine can be shown to be present in the right quantities and proportions in the diary ink, I don't understand how you can say anything 'seems conclusive'. Evidently it doesn't seem conclusive to anyone else, otherwise no one would be calling for further tests, and no one would be interested in Dangar's material - would they?
But I agree we may as well skip the old ground where Mike's involvement is concerned. If you really believe he simply cooked the book in the oven for a spell, thereby fooling Diamine's former chief chemist into thinking it was over 90 years old, and making his own ink utterly unrecognisable to him, there is really not a lot of common old ground between us.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 04 July 2002 - 01:03 pm | | Hi again RJ,
Voller said in 1995, while examining the diary ink, that 'dilution' [of Diamine] would simply not produce this sort of effect'.
Do you think he was out of his depth here?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 04 July 2002 - 03:17 pm | | | Caz--I think he was mistaken---just as you must think that Baxendale, Rendell, & Nickell were mistaken. Cheers, RP |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 05 July 2002 - 08:33 am | | Hi RJ,
I have said, over and over again, that I have been unable to come to any definite conclusions yet. You are the one who appears to have concluded that Voller was mistaken, the diary ink is Diamine and that Mike was up to his neck in forgery.
All this may be true, and you are entitled to believe it. But proof would be nice. And I am not in a position where I am willing or able to dismiss Voller as simply mistaken. Of course this means I must be open to the possibility that the 'experts' not sharing his opinions are mistaken. But it doesn't mean I believe they were - I just don't know.
And I'm clearly not the only one.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 05 July 2002 - 10:45 am | | Hi Caz. Look at it this way. Aluminum was around in Napolean's time, but that doesn't mean that it was used in pen nibs and throw-away candy wrappers until industry made it feasible. So if an expert tells me that a ginger beer bottle with an aluminum ring around its neck was made in 1790, I'm going to be very, very surprised.
Now for aluminum read chloroacetamide.
Cheers. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 09:55 am | | Hi RJ,
Can you explain then how Leeds was unable to find any choloroacetamide in their second test on the diary ink?
Don't tell me it was because their equipment must not have been capable of detecting this chemical - it was. The first test picked up a minute trace - so tiny in fact that they put it down to contamination, and not an active ingredient of the diary ink.
Don't you think that if Leeds could detect the minutest trace of the stuff they would certainly be able to find it in larger quantities - if it was there to be found, ie if the ink they tested was Diamine?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 04:08 pm | | Re: Dangar files.
Originally the plan was for him to be set upon his boat, clothed all in ceremonial uniform of the Watch and Clockmakers Guild and with all the files spread about him. The boat was then to have been set alight and sent out to sea from the port of Tossa de Mar. The ceremony would have been accompanied by the strains of the Horst Wessel Lied sung by the massed choirs of the SS Veterans Glee Club.
Fortunately the files were intercepted before this happened.
And on a point of interest, today I found a copy of the relevant volume of the Sphere Guide at the BookCellar in Welshpool. It was secondhand but in good condition and when laid flat opened at the Crashaw quote. Maybe several books had a binding fault. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 10:14 am | | Hi, Peter:
Many thanks for the additional if humorous information about the Dangar files. As Paul has requested, any timeline on when the contents of the files will be revealed? And where exactly do they reside at this time? Thanks for any elucidation you can provide on these matters.
Interesting about your coming across a copy of the volume of the Sphere Guide in Welshpool, and that when laid flat the copy of the book opened at the page containing the Crashaw quote as did the copy owned by Mike Barrett. I agree with you that the likelihood is that there was a whole batch of the books with the same binding defect. This incidentally, I believe, scotches the suggestion by someone (Peter Wood?) that it was over-use of the book by Barrett that caused the book to open at that page.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 08 July 2002 - 12:02 am | | Caz--Hi. Actually no---I can't explain it; only observe that although it is possible not to find something that is there, it is utterly impossible to find something that isn't there. Which leaves me with trying to make sense of the fact that AFI did find it.
The only way to finally prove whether the ink is Diamine or not is to fund a third test which compares the chemical components directly; a forensic lab in the U.S. called Speckin [they have their own website] specializes in this sort of thing. But I can certainly understand
why Robert Smith might be skeptical of ink tests and why he might be less than enthusiastic about sinking more money into forensic tests. Cheers, RP |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 08 July 2002 - 10:30 am | | Hi All,
Curiouser and curiouser. I was one of those who wondered if Mike, in his astonishment at finding that he owned a second book containing the obscure 'O costly...' quote, and in his excitement at the realisation that he could use it to his advantage, had caused the bias in his Sphere volume by frequent gazing at those five little words.
I seem to recall some suggestion that uneven glue distribution had produced the bias. If there is a bookbinding expert in the house, it would be most helpful to hear an explanation of how more than one book ended up with an identical fault in this way.
It’s heartening to see Peter use the word 'fortunately', in his vivid description of the Dangar files being intercepted before they could contribute to the unfortunate man’s sea-going funeral pyre. I take it Peter can only mean fortunately for the historical record, in which case he is undoubtedly using his influence to urge whoever intercepted the files to set that record straight and as quickly as possible, for the sake of all concerned. Hopefully, then, we can look forward to hearing something positive very soon.
Hi RJ,
Obviously, chloroacetamide must have been present when Leeds did their initial test, and it was also present when AFI did theirs. So perhaps the Leeds equipment developed a fault between tests, which left it incapable of detecting a chemical it had previously been sensitive enough to pick up at a minute level. Or perhaps the amount inexplicably dipped on re-testing to below detectable level. Or perhaps, as Leeds concluded from the second, negative result, it had only been present initially due to contamination.
Thanks for the info about a test that compares chemical components directly. I do wonder, though, why a basic comparison like this could not have been commissioned by those testing their suspicions that Mike bought Diamine ink for forging the diary – when those suspicions were first aroused.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
